It will work until some idiotic user connetcs his company-owned notebook computer to your network - since it's unpatched, he got infected last night at home.
They link to the images directly and use them on their website. Note that I do not mind deep linking - I just do not see why *I* should pay the bandwidth bill for, say, people who use images stored on my server to sell something on ebay for example.
Currently, I do referrer checking on images. Incorrect referrer == no image served. That will work until referrers are abolished (referrers are really a privacy nightmare). Then I will have to establish a sort of internal IP tracking system.
Your arguement that I am just annoyed over people looking at part of my web site "out of context" is invalid. I DO mind them mis-appropriating my resources for their own ends.
A counterexample: Imagine your neighbours hook up to your electric outlets to light their backyard on your bill. Do you think that's okay too? They don't steal the lamp, they just consume resources you pay for. It's theft, and it should be punished (and in fact in the case of electricity would be punished at least where I live.)
What I DO mind are the idiots who IMG SRC link to images stored on my server from their ebay auction / amazon.com store / discussion forum.:-(
Damn bandwidth thieves:-(
Re:Are you people idiots?
on
SARS Contained
·
· Score: 1
We are supposed to be some of the smarter ones. Guess I was wrong...
This is slashdot, dude. Doesn't that tell you anything? Even if you do not have any sarcastic opinion or comment about that, one could argue that geeks are interested solely in other, "cooler" catastrophes like asteroid impacts or a new ice age. Stuff that is easy to understand. Stuff that seems unlikely enough to actually happen.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you. SARS is a big deal. I am personally not worried - my immune system seems to be reasonably strong, I'm not overly worried about fending off some random flue-like disease I come into casual contact with. But we were lucky this time, one just needs to look at the flu-like plagues of the past to see that the death toll could have been MUCH, MUCH higher - and next time, it may not be SARS but a bug that is a lot tougher, whether a mutation of SARS or something completely new.
If anything, the SARS epidemic was scary simply because people did not take it serious, because it did take so long and so much pressure until certain government took effective action.
And just listing the deaths doesn't even start to cover the whoe economic side of SARS, which must have caused damage of many billions of dollars world wide.
I fail to see why this is "+5 funny". It should be "+5 insightful", because Jeremi speaks the truth. The United States is the single most dangerous country in the world. Don't believe me? Count the wars, baby.
What I am saying is that some anonymous guy on Slashdot knows the underlaying technology a hell of a lot better than the patent examiners who work for the US Patent Office.
That difference is absolutely negligible. Even if it's a difference in the fine points of the company strategy, it should NOT be sufficient for a patent. To me this is definitely another case of patent abuse.
However, this guy does not resent computers for being tools for worse writing, but because they're part of, uhm, the industrial conspiuracy against nature (my term), as well as becoming dependant on them (cannot be repaired by man of average intelligence, uses energy produced from strip-mined coal, and so on).
I claim that using a computer or not has exactly zero effect on the quality of the work of any given author. The problem you and other "bloghaters" are alluding to, whether you realize it or not, is that the easy availability of publishing tools removes a great deal of the barrier of entry. In the past, you had to produce "quality" articles to get published; printing your own stuff was basically impossible. Later, with such advances as photocopiers, people could churn out small distributions more easily. But only with the help of the Internet is it possible for basically anybody to publish whatever they feel like to a global audience.
Computers do not decrease the skill of the authors, it makes the work of more (hobby) authors available. And most hobby writers simply have very little talent for writing.
International treaties are irrelevant. Bush demonstrated this and he got away with it. I actually HOPE the chinese will lay a claim to the moon. That should teach Washington a lesson.
Of course - and this is half a joke, yes - the current legal situation leads to encrypted, anonymous, trusted web based p2p file sharing networks; the use of Digital Restrictions Management fosters a lot of work in breaking encryption and codes, and so on.
They should make it a technical contest. If you can protect it, fine. But if someone else breaks your encryption, tough life, it becomes legal to spread copies. I have seen enough in the past, say, 15 years to believe that dedicated hackers will break ANY anti-copy technology.
Slashdot Mirror
It will work until some idiotic user connetcs his company-owned notebook computer to your network - since it's unpatched, he got infected last night at home.
Uh... Big barkeeper is watching you? ;-)
(Sorry, it's early and I haven't had my fill of caffeine yet.)
Sure, but if you have no referrer, then what will you base it on? It's possible but difficult and a lot of effort.
The problem is that referrers are client-controlled.
They link to the images directly and use them on their website. Note that I do not mind deep linking - I just do not see why *I* should pay the bandwidth bill for, say, people who use images stored on my server to sell something on ebay for example.
Currently, I do referrer checking on images. Incorrect referrer == no image served. That will work until referrers are abolished (referrers are really a privacy nightmare). Then I will have to establish a sort of internal IP tracking system.
Your arguement that I am just annoyed over people looking at part of my web site "out of context" is invalid. I DO mind them mis-appropriating my resources for their own ends.
A counterexample: Imagine your neighbours hook up to your electric outlets to light their backyard on your bill. Do you think that's okay too? They don't steal the lamp, they just consume resources you pay for. It's theft, and it should be punished (and in fact in the case of electricity would be punished at least where I live.)
What I DO mind are the idiots who IMG SRC link to images stored on my server from their ebay auction / amazon.com store / discussion forum. :-(
:-(
Damn bandwidth thieves
This is slashdot, dude. Doesn't that tell you anything? Even if you do not have any sarcastic opinion or comment about that, one could argue that geeks are interested solely in other, "cooler" catastrophes like asteroid impacts or a new ice age. Stuff that is easy to understand. Stuff that seems unlikely enough to actually happen.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you. SARS is a big deal. I am personally not worried - my immune system seems to be reasonably strong, I'm not overly worried about fending off some random flue-like disease I come into casual contact with. But we were lucky this time, one just needs to look at the flu-like plagues of the past to see that the death toll could have been MUCH, MUCH higher - and next time, it may not be SARS but a bug that is a lot tougher, whether a mutation of SARS or something completely new.
If anything, the SARS epidemic was scary simply because people did not take it serious, because it did take so long and so much pressure until certain government took effective action.
And just listing the deaths doesn't even start to cover the whoe economic side of SARS, which must have caused damage of many billions of dollars world wide.
I fail to see why this is "+5 funny". It should be "+5 insightful", because Jeremi speaks the truth. The United States is the single most dangerous country in the world. Don't believe me? Count the wars, baby.
Funny??!?! That is not a joke, it is the truth is it not?
They assume - probably rightly - that the average geek does not have a wife.
There was a point in time when I only got 1 Email Spam per month, too. Do you really want to get to a point where SMS is as unusable as email is now?
What I am saying is that some anonymous guy on Slashdot knows the underlaying technology a hell of a lot better than the patent examiners who work for the US Patent Office.
I really thought that much was obvious, no?
Still, the patent then falls under the "obvious" clause.
Refresh often? You do have a lot of guts.. or trust into your server? :D
That difference is absolutely negligible. Even if it's a difference in the fine points of the company strategy, it should NOT be sufficient for a patent. To me this is definitely another case of patent abuse.
They haven't. Remember, they settled without admitting guilt.
However, this guy does not resent computers for being tools for worse writing, but because they're part of, uhm, the industrial conspiuracy against nature (my term), as well as becoming dependant on them (cannot be repaired by man of average intelligence, uses energy produced from strip-mined coal, and so on).
I claim that using a computer or not has exactly zero effect on the quality of the work of any given author. The problem you and other "bloghaters" are alluding to, whether you realize it or not, is that the easy availability of publishing tools removes a great deal of the barrier of entry. In the past, you had to produce "quality" articles to get published; printing your own stuff was basically impossible. Later, with such advances as photocopiers, people could churn out small distributions more easily. But only with the help of the Internet is it possible for basically anybody to publish whatever they feel like to a global audience.
Computers do not decrease the skill of the authors, it makes the work of more (hobby) authors available. And most hobby writers simply have very little talent for writing.
International treaties are irrelevant. Bush demonstrated this and he got away with it. I actually HOPE the chinese will lay a claim to the moon. That should teach Washington a lesson.
...and filling lawyers' pockets in the process, yes.
Did you consider that the whole idea might just BE to make it a bonanza for lawyers?
Since a company that sells Domain Names should really know that such a domain is invalid, this opens up two possibilities:
1) The company is totally incompetent and should not run anything even remotely related to DNS;
2) The entire offer is fraudulent...
...except that ATI has been known to "optimize" for Q3 as well. A benchmark is a benchmark, by any other name it can be cheated just as well.
Of course - and this is half a joke, yes - the current legal situation leads to encrypted, anonymous, trusted web based p2p file sharing networks; the use of Digital Restrictions Management fosters a lot of work in breaking encryption and codes, and so on.
They should make it a technical contest. If you can protect it, fine. But if someone else breaks your encryption, tough life, it becomes legal to spread copies. I have seen enough in the past, say, 15 years to believe that dedicated hackers will break ANY anti-copy technology.
You mean to imply that common sense and RTFL (reading the f...ing law) should stop someone from using a convenient method to silence a disliked party?
Ha.
Of course this differs from ICQ in what regard?